Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Arsen Sarkisov, an alien unlawfully present in the United States, was issued a final deportation order by an immigration judge. Over six years later, Sarkisov moved to reopen his case, but the immigration judge denied the motion. Sarkisov then appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which also rejected his claim. In 2023, Sarkisov appealed the Board’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and requested a stay of the deportation order during the appeal. The United States did not oppose the stay request, and the case was paused for almost a year while Sarkisov attempted to negotiate with the government. When negotiations failed, the litigation resumed, and Sarkisov's motion for a stay was considered.The immigration judge initially denied Sarkisov's motion to reopen his case, and the Board of Immigration Appeals upheld this decision. Sarkisov then appealed to the Sixth Circuit, seeking a stay of removal during the appeal process. The United States did not oppose the stay request, but the case was paused for nearly a year due to ongoing negotiations, which ultimately failed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed Sarkisov's motion for a stay of removal. The court applied the traditional test for a stay, as outlined in Nken v. Holder, which requires the applicant to show a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm without a stay. Sarkisov failed to address the merits of his appeal or provide reasons for irreparable harm, leading the court to deny his motion. The court emphasized that the burden of removal alone does not constitute irreparable injury and that the public interest favors prompt execution of removal orders. Consequently, the motion for a stay of removal was denied. View "Sarkisov v. Bondi" on Justia Law

The petitioner, Nakia Courtney Hamilton, a Jamaican citizen, was ordered removed from the United States in 2017 following a conviction for aggravated battery with a deadly weapon. Hamilton, who was admitted to the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident in 2009, has filed three motions to reopen his removal proceedings. His most recent motion sought to apply for a waiver of the immigration consequences of his conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h).The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied Hamilton’s third motion to reopen, finding it untimely and procedurally barred. Hamilton argued that the procedural limitations should be equitably tolled based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Niz-Chavez v. Garland, which held that a notice to appear must be a single document containing all required information to trigger the stop-time rule for cancellation of removal. The BIA concluded that Niz-Chavez did not affect Hamilton’s eligibility for a § 1182(h) waiver and thus did not justify reopening the proceedings.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and upheld the BIA’s decision. The court found that the stop-time rule in § 1182(h) is triggered by the initiation of removal proceedings, not by the issuance of a compliant notice to appear as required by § 1229(a). The court determined that Hamilton’s removal proceedings were validly initiated when the Department of Homeland Security filed the notice to appear with the immigration court, regardless of whether it included the date and time of the hearing. Consequently, the court held that Hamilton was not eligible for a § 1182(h) waiver and that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion to reopen. The petition for review was denied. View "Hamilton v. Attorney General" on Justia Law

A Russian citizen, Diana Avdeeva, married a U.S. citizen and applied for lawful permanent-resident status, which was granted on a conditional basis. She and her husband later filed a petition to remove the conditional status, but USCIS did not act on it within the required timeframe. After their divorce, Avdeeva requested the petition be converted to a waiver petition. She then applied for naturalization, but USCIS denied her petition, terminated her permanent-resident status, and placed her in removal proceedings. Avdeeva sued USCIS for failing to adjudicate her naturalization application within the statutory period.The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts remanded the case to USCIS based on a settlement agreement, which required USCIS to terminate removal proceedings, approve her petition, and conduct a new naturalization interview. Avdeeva was naturalized, and she dismissed her other lawsuit. She then sought attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), but the district court denied her motion, suggesting she was not a "prevailing party" and that awarding fees would be unjust due to the settlement terms.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that Avdeeva was not a "prevailing party" under EAJA because the change in her legal status was not "court-ordered" but rather a result of the settlement agreement. The court noted that the district court's remand order did not resolve the merits of the case or retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement, thus lacking the necessary judicial imprimatur. Consequently, Avdeeva was not entitled to attorney's fees. View "Avdeeva v. Tucker" on Justia Law

Sotir Libarov, a Bulgarian citizen, applied for lawful permanent resident status in the United States based on his marriage to Elizabeth Alonso Hernandez, a lawful permanent resident. USCIS interviewed both separately and concluded that the marriage was a sham, denying Libarov's application in June 2022. Libarov then submitted a FOIA request to ICE seeking documents related to himself. ICE initially routed the request to USCIS, but Libarov clarified he wanted documents from ICE. By November 2022, having received no response, Libarov filed a lawsuit against both ICE and USCIS.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed Libarov's claims against USCIS and later granted summary judgment for ICE on most issues. The court ruled that Libarov could not seek declaratory relief solely for delayed FOIA disclosure and that FOIA provided an adequate remedy, precluding his APA claim. However, the court ordered ICE to disclose portions of the withheld document containing basic personal information about Libarov.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's judgment. The appellate court agreed that Libarov was not entitled to declaratory relief for the delayed FOIA response, as the agency had eventually conducted an appropriate search and provided the requested documents. The court also upheld the district court's decision to withhold parts of the document under FOIA's exemption 7(A), which protects information related to ongoing law enforcement proceedings. Finally, the appellate court confirmed that FOIA provides an adequate remedy, thus barring Libarov's APA claim. View "Libarov v ICE" on Justia Law

John Doe, using multiple aliases, had a long history with U.S. immigration authorities dating back to 1985. He was twice caught trying to enter the U.S. with fraudulent documents and was deported. In 1988, he was found in Texas and deported again. In 2018, he was detained in Florida, and despite a final deportation order, he refused to cooperate with immigration officials, leading to his indictment on three counts of willfully failing to leave the U.S. under 8 U.S.C. § 1253(a)(1).The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied Doe's request for a jury instruction that would require the government to prove he had been lawfully admitted to the U.S. to convict him under § 1253(a)(1). The court also denied his motion for a judgment of acquittal on the same grounds. Doe was convicted on all counts and sentenced to 51 months in prison.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that § 1253(a)(1) does not require a noncitizen to have been lawfully admitted to the U.S. to be subject to its penalties. The court found that the statutory text and context did not support Doe's interpretation that only admitted noncitizens could be penalized under § 1253(a)(1). The court affirmed the district court's decisions, upholding Doe's convictions and sentence. View "USA v. Doe" on Justia Law

Rajanbir Singh-Kar, a citizen of India, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) in the United States. He claimed that members of a rival political party attacked him twice due to his political activities and that a police officer slapped him, threatened to jail him, and threw him out of the police station when he tried to report the attacks.An immigration judge (IJ) denied Singh-Kar’s application, finding that his testimony regarding a single incident of police misconduct was insufficient to establish that the Indian government was unable or unwilling to protect him. The IJ also found inconsistencies between Singh-Kar’s application and his testimony. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ’s decision, concluding that the IJ did not clearly err in finding that Singh-Kar’s evidence was insufficient. The BIA also noted that Singh-Kar failed to preserve his CAT claim and rejected his ineffective assistance of counsel claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s denial of Singh-Kar’s requests for asylum and withholding of removal. The court held that Singh-Kar’s testimony about a single incident of police misconduct and general country conditions evidence did not compel a different result. The court also found that Singh-Kar failed to preserve his CAT claim and did not demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel. Consequently, the Second Circuit denied Singh-Kar’s petition for review. View "Singh-Kar v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Igor Quinn-Goncalves, an undocumented native and citizen of Brazil, petitioned for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision that upheld an immigration judge's order for his removal from the United States. Quinn-Goncalves, who has been detained throughout the relevant period, acknowledged that his petition was filed late, arriving at the clerk's office three days after the deadline. His wife sent the petition via UPS on the last permissible day, following incorrect advice from the clerk's office that mailing by the deadline was sufficient.The BIA had previously denied Quinn-Goncalves's appeal of the immigration judge's removal order. The immigration judge had ordered his removal based on his undocumented status. Quinn-Goncalves then sought review from the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, but his petition was not filed within the required 30-day period after the BIA's final order of removal.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit dismissed the petition due to its untimeliness. The court emphasized that under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 25(a)(2)(A)(i), a petition for review must be received by the clerk within the statutory deadline to be considered timely. The court rejected Quinn-Goncalves's argument that mailing the petition within the deadline should suffice, distinguishing his case from the precedent set in Houston v. Lack, which applied a mailbox rule for pro se prisoners. The court concluded that it could not extend the filing deadline under Rule 26(b)(2) and dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. View "Goncalves v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Luis Guillermo Gonzalez-Juarez, a native and citizen of Mexico, entered the United States in 1999. After the government initiated removal proceedings against him, Gonzalez conceded removability and applied for cancellation of removal. He argued that his removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his two sons, who planned to accompany him to Mexico. Gonzalez relied primarily on country conditions reports about crime and violence in Mexico, and also cited his sons' lack of fluency in Spanish, their separation from their older sister, and financial concerns.The Immigration Judge (IJ) granted Gonzalez's application for cancellation of removal, finding that he had demonstrated the requisite hardship. However, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reversed the IJ's decision, concluding that Gonzalez had not established that his removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his qualifying relatives. The BIA was not persuaded that the general conditions of crime and violence in Mexico, which would apply to any qualifying relative, met the hardship standard. The BIA also rejected the argument that Gonzalez and his sons would be targeted for criminal violence due to their perceived wealth.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the BIA's decision. The court held that the substantial evidence standard of review applies to the hardship determination in cancellation of removal cases. The court found that substantial evidence supported the BIA's conclusions. The court noted that Gonzalez's other family members had lived in Mexico without harm and that a country conditions report that applies equally to a large proportion of removal cases does not compel the conclusion that the hardship standard is met. The court also rejected Gonzalez's argument that the BIA failed to consider the record evidence. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit denied Gonzalez's petition for review. View "GONZALEZ-JUAREZ V. BONDI" on Justia Law

Suqin Xia, a citizen of China, has lived unlawfully in the United States for over thirty years. She applied for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident under 8 U.S.C. § 1255. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) denied her application, citing discretionary reasons. Xia then challenged the decision in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York under the Mandamus Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.The district court dismissed Xia's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, referencing 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), which bars judicial review of any judgment regarding an application made under § 1255. The court concluded that the denial of Xia's application was a "judgment" under this statute, thus precluding judicial review.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that the denial of an application for adjustment of status under § 1255 is a "judgment" for purposes of § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), regardless of whether it is issued by an immigration court or USCIS. Consequently, the court held that there was no jurisdiction to review Xia's claims, affirming the district court's dismissal of her complaint. View "Xia v. Bondi" on Justia Law

The President invoked the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to remove Venezuelan nationals identified as members of the Tren de Aragua (TdA), a designated foreign terrorist organization. Two detainees, along with a putative class of similarly situated detainees in the Northern District of Texas, sought injunctive relief against their summary removal under the AEA. The detainees were being held in U.S. detention facilities and were notified of their imminent removal.The District Court denied the detainees' motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) against their removal. The detainees then moved for an emergency TRO, which was not promptly addressed by the District Court. Consequently, they appealed to the Fifth Circuit, which dismissed their appeal for lack of jurisdiction and denied their motion for an injunction pending appeal, citing insufficient time given to the district court to act. The detainees also applied to the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and found that the Fifth Circuit erred in dismissing the detainees' appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Court held that the District Court's inaction had the practical effect of refusing an injunction, given the extreme urgency and high risk of irreparable harm faced by the detainees. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Fifth Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court emphasized that due process requires adequate notice and time for detainees to seek habeas relief before removal. The Government was enjoined from removing the detainees under the AEA pending further proceedings and disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari. View "A.A.R.P. v. Trump" on Justia Law